Yeah, I know. I'm just a random dude who criticizes these critics and some of you don't even care about my opinion because it's controversial, but really, how can they rate TDK so low and this movie so high?

First off, there are needless plot twists that you cannot understand. Why did Erica Sloan turn against IMF? Her reasons are just not reasonable enough. How did August Walker's men infiltrate Sloan's team? We don't know much about it. They don't tell us. Sure, it was cool but my immersion was ruined. They could've been written it more subtle. Second of all, the elevator scene. Walker shows a picture of Ethan's ex-wife to Ethan(clearly he carries it all the time) and says this and that, but the reason why Walker didn't kill Ethan is that his evil friend has a plan for him after he supposedly suicided. But wait, 30 minutes after that scene, Walker shoots to kill Ethan with a machine gun. This right here is the definition of lazy writing. They just tucked a stupid reason in the movie so that they could just ignore it and make me feel stupid. Thirdly, why is Julia in this movie? Don't get me wrong, It was nice to see a familiar face, and she gave herself a pretty good closure, but here's what wouldn't have happened if she wasn't in this: They wouldn't have had to put a reason, which it was a really big turn off for me, not to kill Ethan. We wouldn't have gotten an awkward wire cutting scene. We wouldn't have gotten weird dreams. And probably I wouldn't be writing these negative things. Fourthly, Solomon Lane, a pretty genius guy, pulls his enemies to their objective and fights with them face to face. That's pretty cool but why? Why did he aggro'd them? Why did he even decide to stay and choose to die? This writing could've been much much better. They could've given him more clever things to do. Fifthly, the unstoppable bomb stopped by 3 people because they have ''figured it out''. Sixthly, a countdown. Suprise, surprise. I really wonder why evil people put a countdown on these things. Can't they just press the damn detonator button when the time is right? Guess what happened in the end. The good guys lost and the bad guys won. Billions are dead. That was totally unexpected and hard to guessed. 10/10 original writing right there. But let's look on the bright side. They executed that last shot perfectly. The sunset almost had me for a second. Seventhly, there are unanswered questions. Why did they put two devices in the same place? How did Ethan stop the bomb go off with its detonator? Did I miss something? Finally, the ending. You don't leave the theater with ''wow'' or ''what just happened'' expressions because they've already ended the movie before the end. Sure, it has a deserved and a great dark/grim ending which every plot and dialogue constantly instigated throughout the movie but you didn't get a big feeling like you did get after the TDK ended. Or, you didn't sit like you did sit after the Infinity War ended

These are just small things that TDK, a film that well-educated critics rated lower than this movie, doesn't harbor. Overall the movie is not bad. There were some cliches but it seems nobody cares about this anymore. Set-pieces, the sound editing, cinematography, pacing, it was all great. It just that the writing could have been much more in-depth. Or maybe it's just me. After seeing that god tier praises from the critics, I expected something better than TDK. Well, I was wrong. The dialogues weren't even that close. I guess critics don't care about these small things

But wait, they do care about the small things. I mean look at their rating for ''Black Panther'' That movie currently at 8.9/10 rating with 51 reviews on RT. And on Metacritic it at 88/100 score with 55 reviews. I wonder what makes that movie so special for the critics 🤔 Is it the stunts or the unpredictable plot twists? Maybe it's because of its beautiful CGI effects. Nah. Maybe it's because of its absorbing and original story. Yeah, that does make more sense. Because we don't see everyday a black man who tries to be king in a fantasy land want to rule the whole world. Yeah, that sounds about unprecedented and 8.9/10 rating worthy. But put yourself in some of the big directors like Christopher Nolan position and think that every film that you made got more negative reviews than Black Panther. What do directors need to create to get praised by these critics nowadays? A black Harry Potter?

And the worst thing is these hypocritical critics, only 10 - 30 - 60 people, are overshadowing people's own judgments with their dependent opinions that polluted by politics and mindset like "we're not fond of pretentious movies and directors". Their opinion is essential for people who can't form an opinion, and nothing can change those people mind's other than the critics. The next big movie that they're going to bash will probably be "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)" But not that kind of a big bash. Small bashes like they did for "The Dark Knight", "The Shawshank Redemption", "The Usual Suspects","Interstellar", ''Fight Club'', "Se7en","Inception"... These films, they all look so pretentious with their challenging plots, prominent cast and independent directors. But these professional critics don't want to promote these kinds of prominent films, they have to say irrelevant things about them to criticize it so that they could look "cool" to the audience. Or maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe they're just completely missing the point about them like they did miss in "Blade Runner","2001: A Space Odyssey", "The Shining", "Psycho", "Citizen Kane"... Firstly they bashed these films to the ground because they didn't understand a thing and it all looked too pretentious for them, and then they had to "reevaluate" each one of it because they didn't want to look stupid. I bet they still don't know a thing about it, they just had to. But of course, at some point, they have to keep their reputation maintain too. That's why they show love for some of the classic movies like "The Godfather", "12 Angry Men", "Pulp Fiction'', "Seven Samurai" When they saw a "Cult classic" movie alike they'll eat each other to praise that film. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they don't want to look stupid like they did look stupid once because of bashing "Blade Runner", "2001", "The Shining", "Psycho", "Citizen Kane"... They love to pretend to be the smartest with their expertise and knowledge but they'll never be a filmmaker. They don't want to see depressing movies, or they talk about the importance of ''entertainment'' in a movie, but after they watch "Schindler's List" they forget all about the importance of entertainment. The films that made by docile directors have always been more convenient for them to praise. For example Disney/Marvel movies. I bet you can't name one director who directed marvel movie other than Russo brothers. IF the message is right, they have to praise those movies that involve feminism and politics, like ''Dunkirk (2017)'', ''Wonder Woman'', ''Get Out'', ''Black Panther'', ''The Love Witch'', ''Moonlight''... If the message isn't right, those movies are just another trash for their dump, like "American History X", "Leon: The Professional" "Sucker Punch", "Fight Club", "Watchmen"... Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they didn't like them because they all looked too pretentious. Or maybe they completely misinterpreted the whole message like they misinterpreted "Blade Runner", "2001", "The Shining", "Psycho" They've always been inconsistent and always will be. Next year they're probably gonna say baseless things about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood like "there was too much violence in it", "there was too much blood in it", "the characters were too cold" without considering movie's content. Because they don't like prominent materials. They must say something out of place to criticize it. What they do is something like declaring a horror movie "too scary". The only thing they have is politically overwhelmed and subjective opinions that their big names on. They won't support their opinions with reasons because it's a risky approach. If a random person say the exact same things about a movie like them, nobody would take that person seriously, we wouldn't even care. I'm not saying they shouldn't criticize the big movies, just tryna point it out that their motivation, their method of criticizing is inefficient for the audience. I mean just tell me, how can the same people rate Batman Begins 6.8/10 and Black Panther 8.9/10? Don't we all have eyes to see the difference or are we all blinded by the politics? Where the audience loves to see challenging plots that executed nicely, plausible plot twists, detailed scripts, compelling stories, inspired scores, stylish cinematography; most of these critics overlook these elements, and some of them made a hobby of bashing popular directors who love these elements. And some people really worship these critics and nothing can change those people's minds. In their eyes, those critics are always right, no matter what. But put yourself in those directors position and try to envision critics panning your movie for the things they don't understand and people believing them blindlessly. They want attention and people giving it to them, this was my other reason to write a garbage paragraph like this. But still, who am I to judge, right? I don't have some kind of a degree like those guys have. You're probably making fun of me "Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion man", "Who are you to make a comment about critics' methods","An idiot on the internet DESTROYS professional critics with ASSUMPTIONS and LOGIC😂😂😂" You have every right because I'm just a random dude

253 out of 300 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

As we all know, this is the sixth instalment of the franchise. Supposedly by this time, the series already started long to drag their wear and tear tires here and about, so within so without, sucking every preposterous and ridiculous ideas they can think of. However, Mission Impossible franchise has been one of the few to deny that statement, as the impossible becomes possible, as it suggests that statement is merely a myth, as the ideas never entirely run out, as the stunts are afresh and eye-catching but can this new instalment keep up with the others (putting aside the second one as if it never happens because the majority of us can agree it's the worst) or will it have a serious fallout?

One thing to talk about is the plot. It is superficially heavy this time, in fact the heaviest out of all the series. Plus, it is intertwined and ultra-complicated for a summer Hollywood movie that you will be exhausted after the 147 mins ride. What makes this successful is that it has that Oscar-worthy vibe and it solves the puzzles very neatly towards the end despite some revelations might come off as predictable. And before I forget to mention, this movie has a lot of deep connections with Rogue Nation (the 5th instalment). Watch the previous instalment before stepping into this new mission or you will hardly relate with the characters. And if you've had the time, revise the 3rd one too.

Now, you must promptly be wondering, how about the stunts? Let me get to this part. THE... STUNTS... ARE... REAL! Every time you go in watching this best ongoing franchise in the world, you should bear in mind that CGI is a non-existent element. And the stunts are performed by Tom Cruise himself. The daring set pieces are well choreographed and acted in a way that looks real and genuine that puts most of this year's other action blockbuster movies to shame. The BATHROOM scene... will leave you in total shock. The PARIS scene... will make you gasp due to many unexpected moments... The ROOFTOP scene... will make you wonder which one that got Tom Cruise injured... The KASHMIR scene... will make your heart jitters and probably, pees in your pants because... THE STUNTS ARE ALL REAL!

Acting is well done, of course. Henry Cavill savors his swashbuckler swagness, Simon Pegg brings less comedy to the table but executes a more matured lad, Rebecca Ferguson has improved a lot since her debut in Rogue Nation, and she has lost a lot of weight that perfectly suits her role, Michelle Monaghan makes us miss her character so much and eventually, fall in love with her and Tom Cruise is anything good you can possible talk about. He is a legend!

What I like is it plays a bit different this time in which there is less over-the-top artificial techs and more to realistic stunts that put the gadgets to rest this time. This is a classified mission where nothing is impossible in reality but it is impossible to commit because of how dangerous and menacing there are.

They opt on breathtaking locations as they fill with richness and intensity making the movie charges with a load of energy that transmits to the audience who becomes alive and fully realizes that this is the exact location without any usage of CGI.

When the action scenes come in especially the Paris scene, the sound effect is top-notch; you can hear those tiny details of engineered sound system waving in the cinema hall, sucking the audience as if we are in the action movie ourselves.

What I dislike is the repetitive dialogues by the characters, it is semi-cool and semi-irritating because they keep saying the same phrases. It comes off as irritating but why is it cool is because sometimes, it uses the third-act solution technique in creating a storyline... and humor apparently.

Another thing I despise is the scene when the theme song emerges on the big screen. Don't get me wrong... I love and salute the theme song. However, I hate it when it shows glimpses of scenes and stunts that about to happen afterwards followed by its almost-constructed chronological order. In my opinion, that is a big spoiler!

And I dislike that they fail to tell Jeremy Renner's character whereabouts after Rogue Nation (as far as I can remember).

Truth to be told, I wasn't a huge fan of the Mission Impossible series until... three months before this movie came out. I felt a whole energy down my spine and knew this is going to be a good one. Bloody hell! How wrong was I! It isn't just good, it is state-of-the-art masterpiece action blockbuster film.

So if I'm going to rank all the six impossible-made films, it would be:
(From Best to Worst)

6, 4, 3, 5, 1 and 2.

Is there any hope for this franchise to survive in Hollywood? VERY POSSIBLE!
Is there any story left that this franchise can get hold onto for the next instalment? POSSIBLE!
Is there any chance you might doze off during the movie at any condition? IMPOSSIBLE!
Is there any chance left that the stunts can get any better than Fallout? VERY IMPOSSIBLE!

Your mission... should you choose to accept it is to see Mission Impossible: Fallout in theaters!

Overall: 90/100

This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

504 out of 953 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tom Cruise not only a handsome man,he is the best actor. Mission Impossible:Fallout is indeed a terrific family-action movie from the start till the end.
Great Espionage movie.mesmerizing action,great acting and grand direction.
I am not surprised if this terrific movie wins too many Oscars.
See it and enjoy the enchantment in this masterpiece film.

397 out of 789 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I didn't even recognize this as a mission impossible movie. All the characters felt somehow different.
The action was quite unbelieveable and not in a good way, it didn't have any wit to it as in ghost protocol. Most of the action scenes were just mindless car chasing with nice camera angles, nothing else. Bathroom scene felt like taken from true lies, and van scene felt like it was taken from dark knight, hell even the music sounded the same as in dark knight.
Just when I felt the plot suprised me a little, some other plot twist comes which dumbs the last one down and makes the movie feel more stupid.
Near the halfway mark I was ready to leave the theater.
If you're going to see this movie I implore you to reconsider and watch ghost protocol or some good action movie like Taken instead.

70 out of 130 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The protagonist trying to avoid the fourth, fifth, sixth etc. a-bomb exploding. That would make a better movie. Instead of going with a setting in a dystopian world wrecked by nukes and chaos, they did go for the cartoon version of the bad guy fooled in a stage play. It sets the tone for this movie: predictable action like every superhero movie from Batman to Die Hard. And the inevitable 1 second bomb defusing is the laughable cliché. The CGI was good. But apart from that, this movie is a waste of time.

The set pieces are gorgeous as you'd expect from a huge budget. The actors are A list. The special effects are very good. That's where it ends. The script was an egofest for Cruise and unintentionally a laugh out loud comedy that has all the laughs from unrealistic early movies.

Plot. Tom Cruise is just too damn nice. He's the super agent with a huge heart, willing to risk the fate of the world for his friends or even for an innocent police officer he doesn't know. He's just that kind of awesome sweetheart. But it can cause problems. And now the US government doesn't know whether Tom is just another ticked off agent who is double crossing his own people! Oh no, not that All American boy we love!!!! Can he and a team of geriatric looking jokesters top the world's most evil man, save the world and save everyone they love? Well, not for a minute did I think anyone believed old Tommy was in danger, in spite of doing the most craptacular stunts.

Problems:

1. When a character criticizes Tommy and says "no one will fall for that trick" and everyone in the audience knows what's going to happen next.

2. What happens when a double cross double crosses the double crosser who double crosses the double double crosser because it needs to be done in order to double the double cross?

3. When Tom needs help from Hollywood, he gets it. Time slows down, high elevation becomes nothing more than a hit the ground and roll fall, the bad guys simply take their sweet merry time so that Tom can arrive... you name it. Every laughable exaggeration from old films made it into this one.

4. The obsession with getting even with Ethan Hunt will distract everyone from their master plan. Hmmm.... so let's see the choice.... get away or get even with Ethan Hunt and potentially screw up all my perfect master plans which would kill Hunt anyway? The obsession must go on and Ethan must always win.

The audience was laughing at this lazy tripe. These reviews are fake.

335 out of 697 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I couldn't believe the low quality grainy 3D cinematography. Did Tom Cruise get a deal on some Chinese 3D cameras. I saw it in a VIP theatre and it looked like this thing was shot on a consumer 3D handycam.

The storyline was predictable and overly simplistic. I don't demand a lot from an action movie, but Michelle Monaghan's reintroduction was confusing, unnecessary and appeared to be written in as an afterthought.

And all this talk about them doing their own stunts for added authenticity. Well, I for one would like them to go back to using professional stunt persons. This whole do your own stunts thing came off an an ego driven attempt to impress other cast members, that fell flat. Very flat.

Finally, the writing was absolutely terrible. I couldn't help but wonder through the entire predictable movie if Tom Cruise also wrote and directed this himself. It was that bad.

When I see the ridiculously high ratings on IMDB it makes me think that writing fake positive reviews is now just part of the industry.

I really enjoyed the first few films in the MI franchise, but now it's just the same old rehashed storyline. I really wanted to like it. But instead I now feel obligated to expose this cash grab for what it really is.

I'm confident that the truth will slowly come out and today's 8.5 rating on IMDB will eventually drop down to a 4.5 - which is still much higher than it deserves.

No spoilers on the plot here. Just imagine a bunch of overpaid aged friends getting together to travel around the world to show off their fitness level. Even Baldwin dropped a few pounds.

Come on guys. Speak up next time you see such a weak script. I'm sure some of you still have standards.

178 out of 365 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Not sure if the critics are bought or not, but surely this is mostly overrated. The plot is much contrived and coincidental. Based on a cliched "saving-the-world" story, most of the scenes are not realistically set. Hunt is just like a Superman or something. There is no tension or thrill, because you know everything will be fine and there will be another cash grab sequel.

140 out of 285 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Another mysterious group who wants turn the world on it's head, Ethan yet again gets stabbed in the back by supposed friends in a twist that surprises no one, goes rouge again, saves the day and ends up showing yet another opposing branch of US intelligence why they need IMF.

It's not a bad movie. Well shot, good acting, cool action and interesting characters... But it feels like I've seen this before.

In the end, I was thinking "Do they actually have the balls to make this a bittersweet or sad ending?"... But, alas, the world was saved due the biggest distance-leap in movie magic history.

So all in all, it's a Mission Impossible film... They're keeping to the formula that's worked before... Sadly, a bit too much. There's nothing new to it which makes it a mindless action flick.

175 out of 361 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Seriously? I do not understand all these high ratings. I agree with the only thing. The action is good and some of the scenes are quite surreal but the rest is A trash. I guess it all reflect the current state of the society. People LOVE TRASH!

127 out of 263 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tom Cruise is a machine. He knows what audiences want and he delivers. Not sure how they can top this one (but I thought the same after watching him cling onto a plane). Keep making these Mr Cruise and thanks for entertaining us!

183 out of 388 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

This movie long, predictable and boring. It had like 3 good scenes. But the rest was so predictable and overdone. I was literally on my phone reading the reviews and wondering if they saw the same movie I was watching. Everyone seems to praise this movie. Seems fishy

156 out of 328 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation set a high standard. Fallout falls short of these films and here is why:

1. No New Villain:

A new film requires a new and unique villain. Reusing the same villain from the last film is lazy writing and boring. We have just had a film about Solomon Lane in which he was a genuinely terrifying villain but in Fallout, the writers obviously just decided they couldn't be bothered.

I could understand if a few films down the line they wanted to bring back an old threat but not in the very next film and not in the way they did it. They managed to ruin a great villain character.

2.Henry Cavill:

He is a great actor but totally misused in this film. His character seemed absolutely pointless and he was terrible at playing the villain. His character was very uninteresting, boring and bland. A waste.

3.Boring locations:

The last film we visited London and Paris. Nearly this whole film takes place in these two cities and as a result we get no exotic or unique locations just grey cities which we have seen last time out.

The final part of the film in Kashmir is the only part where we get a break from these dull city greys but this is right at the end. There is no break in the middle from these city scenes and they all blur together. Even then the helicopter chase then goes from the mighty Himalayas to suddenly being in the Norwegian Fjords. Two parts of the world that look nothing alike and we are expected to believe they are the same place. This really takes you out of the moment.

4. Missing team members:

This is becoming a theme with these films. Paula Patton was not present in Rogue nation with no explanation. Jeremy Renner was not present in Fallout, again, with no explanation. They could at least come up with a reason why they aren't there even if it was just one line in the film. They act like these valuable team members never existed.

5. No memorable or tense scenes.

The previous two films are full of memorable scenes. The water tank, the building climb in Dubai and the chase in Morocco for example. This has no scenes that get you on the edge of your seat.

Sadly, Fallout does not reach the high heights of its two predecessors.

Mission Impossible Fallout is the best movie of the mission impossible franchise, everyone involved in the production of the film did an outstanding job. The action is amazing (props to the stunt team), the acting is great and the story is very interesting and beautiful.

300 out of 654 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

An action packed and visually stunning movie, worth watching, but lacking in story quite a bit. The actors does their best with what they are given, Henry Cavill being the most captivating of them all. But the looks can't make up for the weak writing. The story contains a few plot twists and keeps the viewer guessing, a quality a look for in a movie.

But... if the writing isn't strong enough plot twists can lead to serious plot holes and this movie has a lot of them. I couldn't take this movie serious halfway in because the story and the characters didn't make sense at all most of the time. It's way to obvious where the studio put their effort and money, on the awesome stunts and the great visuals. But that, unfortunately, can't make up for the sub par script.

I don't know if it was the script that was weak or if it's a result of bad editing and rewrites but the movie doesn't work for me in its entirety.

See, this movies 'user' reviews are the problem, the big problem with a review site open to anybody. Its obvious the reviews have been skewed wildly upward by ...?? Only somebody getting a paycheck could rate this thing a 10. Or a 9. Or an 8. or a 7. The movie is a hashup of cartoonish scenes to portray Tom Cruise as an actor of merit. He's not. And the since the film is nothing more than his vehicle, everything else falls by the wayside.

I rated it at 2/10 and let me tell ya, that is generous.

124 out of 260 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

And the Oscar goes to ... all the talk show hosts who say, so convincingly, that they loved the movie. The ONLY thing that carries this movie is the action that is pretty well done. Other than that - the performances are unbearable and the plot is ... well, I am not even sure there is was a plot. Tom Cruise has no lines - the only arch in his character is that he is sorry. He is sorry in English, in broken French, with painful facial expressions, grunt and sighs and so on. That is the only emotion his character communicates. This movie is just as awkward and barely held together as the press tour with its main actors. How can this editing and writing disaster have a 86 metacritic score is beyond me.

109 out of 227 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I saw an early screening this last Saturday and was extremely hyped going in. Two and a half hours later, my expectations had been exceeded. I've been a fan of all the Impossible films, and rewatched them all many times. I can firmly say that this is the best in the franchise and my new all time favorite action movie. The stunts leave you breathless, the acting is well done, and the cast dynamic is better than ever. I cant get this film out of my head and hope Cruise and the cast get the recognition they so truly deserve.

230 out of 501 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

'Mission: Impossible - Fallout' burst onto the scene this weekend, rejuvenating what had been a mostly baron summer of action-blockbusters. Sure, we had 'Equalizer 2' and 'Skyscraper,' but those were both meh. Thankfully, this film is far better than meh. Actually, it's excellent.

Its excellence comes from a commitment to the craft. Normally, three months of intensive training are required for someone to qualify for a helicopter pilot's license. Tom Cruise, in preparation for this film, did it in half that time. How? By training 16 hours a day, seven days a week. He did all this for one action sequence. That's the level of commitment to the craft that went into this movie.

Each grand set piece (all of which are glorious) fills the frame just right. Very little CGI is used, which makes everything look real because it is real. We aren't watching a contrived creation of what is supposed to look like Tom Cruise zipping through town on a motorcycle-he's actually zipping through town on a motorcycle. And that helicopter pilot training? That paid off in a big way. It delivered what is one of the best, most intense action sequences in years.

Each scene flows smoothly into the next, rarely pausing to catch its breath. It brings to mind memories of 'Mad Max: Fury Road,' which featured a similarly breakneck pace and continuous propulsion. Fallout's action doesn't quite reach that level, but the feel is certainly similar.

I've waited this long to mention the plot because I hardly considered it essential, which might sound weird or as though it's a detriment (it's not). There is a lot to know and also very little know. Early scenes feature some rather extensive exposition. The density and length of these conversations may cause some viewers' minds to wander-that's okay.

While the dialogue is crisp and the details are helpful for better understanding the plot, all viewers really need to understand is that a group of terrorists called The Apostles want to wreak havoc, and it's Ethan Hunt's mission to stop them. Basically, he and his team need to save the world.

There's nothing wrong with action taking center stage over the story in this case. After all, this is an action movie. The minute reasons why something is happening become less important when what is happening is so masterfully executed and thrilling to watch.

The camera whirls majestically around each chase sequence, and the fight scenes pop off the screen. They're brutal, well-shot and coherent, which is not always the case with big budget action films. The violence feels real, as do the consequences. I know jaw-dropping is a bit of a cliché description to use, but these fight scenes (and a few additional action sequences) literally made my jaw drop.

And of course, in between the fights, we receive a hefty dose of Tom Cruise running really fast. He's one of the all-time best movie runners. Tremendous intensity. Beautiful form.

Cruise is exceptional. This franchise would crumble without him. Ving Rhames, who has been at Cruise's side for all six 'M:I' films, is a steadying presence once again. Simon Pegg provides his usual comic relief, and Henry Cavill steps in as a younger, stronger super-spy, to remind us that Cruise can't do this forever.

Overall, this is an exceptionally satisfying movie-going experience. It's one of the best films of the year and one that will stick with you well after leaving the theater.

122 out of 257 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Let's get straight to the point: MISSION IMPOSSIBLE - FALLOUT justifies the need to watch action movies on the big screen. Every single action scene works, particularly the final one. Tom Cruise never disappoints when it comes to fighting, chasing and of course, running! He officially killed it in this movie!

It was a pleasure to see Henry Cavill join the show. All actors were impressive as well, but he was very effective throughout the movie.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE - FALLOUT showcases a perfect blend of breathtaking action, eye-catching locations and exhilarating cinematography combined with suspenseful thrills. Even though the summer's come to an end, the film made me feel it just started!

I don't think just one viewing is going to satisfy me. Halfway through the film and I was thinking of a second watch. IMAX viewing totally justified.

When I watched the previous 3 MI movies back-to-back yesterday, I had no idea I'd be in a complete treat today! I knew FALLOUT would be great, but it just surprised and surpassed all my expectations!

I can talk about this movie all day. I love action movies and this is easily one of the best ones I've seen this year. Apart from entertainment, it also provides lessons on how to make action movies, efficiently. It couldn't have been any better than this. I would easily label this as my finest IMAX experience of an action blockbuster, ever.

In one word, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE - FALLOUT is PERFECT. Recommended catching it on an IMAX screen.

155 out of 335 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Just Watched it on saturday...and i find it the best Mission impossible movie ever...and probably one of the best action movie ever...the action was pure entertaining..the stunts were so awesome and real why shoudnt they be...after all it was tom cruise behind it all...tom always gives his 100 percent performance wether its stunts or acting...the story was very powerful...emotional and full of twists and suspense..the vililan..ahhhh Henry cavill i think it is his best performance ever in movies...and probably the best villian in MI series yet...and visuals were so great....director christopher maccquire have delivered best action film of 2018...hands down and hatts of to him...couldn't see one single lack in this movie...but i did miss agent brandt he was also a star of the movie...But In The end I must say the best Mission Impossible Movie Yet....A Must See Movie

108 out of 230 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mission: Impossible - Fallout is a very boring movie, like all the movies of this kind ... cars and motorcycles, speed, shooting, beating and many special effects.
They copy each other: The market is overwhelmed with such dull movies, movies made just to make money!
Everything is predictable, it has no charm.... "good guys" and "bad guys", with a very tangled story which sometimes no longer understand, hard to follow!

The story of the movie is unrealistic, the director is an amateur who made the film in a hurry.

52 out of 105 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fallout feels like a direct sequel to Rogue Nation, even though it doesn't take place immediately after in the timeline (based on some dialogue I believe it to be two years later). But a lot of things remained consistent: we finally kept a director around (I'll get to that later) and many of the characters have returned, including one Solomon Lane (played by Sean Harris) with more villainy than ever before. In the past, we would cruise through team members such as Maggie Q, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Paula Patton, and heck even Jeremy Renner who was not in this flick... but we have grown into others like Ving Rhames (whose character wasn't just there to look cool and throw in some one-liners, but rather to shed some actual emotional weight), Simon Pegg (who has finally earned my respect "in the field" where I feel he now officially belongs), flashes of Michelle Monaghan (the Jules factor!) and newcomers Alec Baldwin (underused again) and Rebecca Ferguson (dayum is all I have to say). Yes, they threw in some new characters in this film... I'd say one too many for me to keep track of... but they didn't interfere too much with the chemistry already in place with the other actors/actresses surrounding Tom Cruise and the bigger picture. I'm a bit iffy on Henry Cavill's character still, as he felt a bit out of place from the franchise we've been accustomed to, but he did work in this film as did his mustache. Even still, I think this movie demands a re-watch on my end to understand all of the character motivations again, particularly three of them.

All told it does feel like a sequel to RN in the sense that you should not see this one if you don't see that one. I think it is enough of a companion to make 3-6 part of a larger something when all watched together, even though 4 is only loosely connected at this point from a story perspective. In terms of feel however, it is not like any of the other M:I films before it. Instead of going for sleek and stylish, they chose raw and gritty in more ways than one. It really had its dark and serious moments, even played by the score through the opening credits (which I had to close my eyes for because they tend to spoil movie moments lol) demonstrating it would carry more epic impact than normal. Sometimes it delivered on that, and other times I think its reach exceeded its grasp, but ultimately you would feel it. It still had light humor time-to-time, but this was not a light-toned film in the slightest. I don't know if "grounded" is the right way to describe the film's attitude (because any time it is literally off the ground it is quite ridiculous as far as action films like to go!), but any time that it is on the ground everything is pretty simple. This film isn't built around stealth and technology; in fact, outside of masks and GPS-tracking (and some thing reading off a mission), I honestly couldn't name a single piece of technology that was more advanced than that in this entire film (EDIT: I thought of one more thing but it really won't wow you, and you probably won't even think of what I'm talking about after seeing it). Outside of some of the camera work, it definitely had a throwback feel to it, pulling the reins a lot but not in a forced way. This one just didn't call for a lot of futuristic technology.

The action this time around really was all about chases, gunplay and hand combat. I mean if you like hand combat, then you'll really have fun with 2-3 particular scenes in this movie. This is all good and great for an action movie, but good enough for Mission: Impossible? Because of the characters involved, YES. Outside of one of the beginning set-pieces, every action scene in this movie is heavily built up and driven by the story around it, and felt like the story's impact of the moment was always bigger than the stunts being pulled off. This is a good thing, but that also means it's not all surface-level entertainment. You could pop in your Blu-ray of any of the previous three M:I films and watch an action sequence and just go: "Hell yeah." In this film, each moment is earned a little more as the story progresses, and they are very character-focused moments. I can't say it really compares to the other films in terms of action, but it worked. At one point I think it got a hair too ridiculous, but I was on board because of the situation at hand. This doesn't really have the summer blockbuster tag that the last two felt like they did, though. I can see some high schoolers not understand the progression of this franchise and walk out going: "That was stupid and boring." Go watch Transformers, little ones.

Now it's time to sing some serious praises for two individuals. The first one is writer/director Christopher McQuarrie. Given the state of this franchise, they found the right person to steer the ship. Even in the middle of this 2.5-hour-long film when the action feels a bit bogged down and mundane from something you'd expect out of M:I, McQuarrie does enough for it to still feel different. Many scenes are shot so practically, the music is always original, tongue-in-cheek moments are injected without taking you out of the scenes, and you're always exploring the space around you so that nothing is ever too stationary. There is one action setting that didn't work for me at all and I honestly don't know what was going on, but it dynamically moved away from there fast enough and continued on to the next immediate action moment that all was forgiven and I was caught up to speed again. He understands the characters so you're not left with thinking they're making irrational decisions, and he understands how to showcase his stars so they can give him all that they have to offer. He captures it in a nice wide frame and only cuts when he has to. Sometimes he mutes the score for the sound effects, and there is this one really awesome moment where he drowns the sound effects from the score and it works so perfectly. If there is another film, I expect him to stay a part of the team.

The next person is Tom Cruise. Good. Lord. This guy is the reason we watch these movies. Talk about a guy giving it his all. Stunts in previous films may have had the panache that sells you watching the trailer, but I can tell you first-hand that nothing is as demanding as what he went through doing some of his stunts this time around. This guy doesn't age! When I say that, I mean he literally looks younger in this film than he did in Rogue Nation or Ghost Protocol! This dude shows you what it means to sprint, and his abilities handling a weapon, riding a motorcycle, now doing things off the ground (which means more than one thing really), and everything else just makes the action that much more convincing. You don't have to have CGI, green screen, stunt doubles, or quick-cuts to try and convince you otherwise (I'm looking at you, Taken 3). It's only unfortunately that you're actually taken out for a moment only to sit back and say: "Holy ****, Tom Cruise is actually doing that in front of our eyes." Kudos to what he does, and apparently it is worth every penny of everybody watching it as well. He will break bones for us to make this happen, and it really is a delight. He is an ageless wonder, and I can't wait to see what he is willing to do for us next! I just hope he makes it out the other side each time.

I'll admit I was a little shook with how different this film was than the others, but it didn't make it any worse... just different. Connection-wise it feels more like a M:I sequel than any other one, but tone-wise it couldn't feel more separate. I have to wrap my head around some of the plot points and character motivations I didn't quite grasp watching it, but if I am going to grade it on M:I standards I can't in all good faith put it above 3 or 5. That doesn't mean it is a worse film, though. It was a great film, and by all technical merits it hit too many right notes, and I believe more so than any of the ones before it. Just a little bit of unevenness, but I like that characters were the focus and that they dug deep into what Rogue Nation gave us instead of just making something another wacky episode in the wide world of Ethan Hunt & crew. It was not as flashy and full of blockbuster moments as the other films were save a couple of items here and there, but I think if you are a fan of this franchise you would be way hard-pressed to find too many downfalls in the final result. Leaving the theater I award it a strong eight mustaches out of ten, and sandwiching it around the middle. If this is on the merits of being a film and and of itself, I would place it above Ghost Protocol easily and it could potentially top 3 and 5 for some. If judged against films for being in the Mission: Impossible franchise, GP may sneak above it by a hair. But because of the strong connection to Rogue Nation leading to some consistency for once, I'll currently place my ranking at:

3
5
6
4
1
2

I think this is a movie that will get better the more you re-watch it, whereas the other films really peak their excellence the first time through because there isn't much past surface-level. I can't wait to see this one again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. I don't know where else to fit this, so I'll just place it at the end. There was this recurring line in the film that characters would say, along the ilk of: "I'll figure it out." It was always in response to a character asking how they'll approach something next. I don't know if this was a gaff in the screenplay or a wink at the audience in some way---maybe as a response to the previous movie having two different characters literally anticipate every outcome of the film's entirety since the planning stages---and now showing in this film that they have to improvise scenarios reactionarily to something that was unforeseen. I don't know what it was, but it felt like it was said a bit too much. I'd really like to hear McQuarrie bring that up in an audio commentary.

71 out of 149 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink